Banned for apologising!

wexfordman

Post 710 of this thread is the supposed offedning post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890887&page=48

The issue is my post initially read

"Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of an crackpot who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing, so I pretty much assume you would think that sneezing in the wrong direction towards an animal would be sh!tty

Im pretty ammazed that your more than happy to see the extinction of species though!

The mod warned me about the post. I asked specifically what the issue was, and he highlighted the bit in bold "your a bit of a crackpot! who wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing"

Now, fieldsports can be a contentious issue, and any debate can get heated, but I dont see the above post as particularly offensive. I was trying to point out the "unusual" belief the poster had, that racing and fishing should be banned.

Anyway, I strongly believed that the post I made was not offensive, but seeing as the mod insisted it was, I ammended it, and made an apology to the poster it was directed at.

To simply ammend it and say nothing would have been dishonest, so I thought i should ammend it an apologise publicly,which I did in post 771 here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890887&page=52

The apology consisted of me saying sorry, and ammending the post!

It appears I have no been banned for reffering to someone as an "odd character", and for the life of me I cant understand how that is offensive. Perhaps I should have changed it to refer to his "odd beliefs" but I doubt boards.ie has become that pc, as to restrict debate to that level!

It would seem to me to be a particulary unusual issue to pick out of the thread, which has far more contentious posts that the one above!

wexfordman

Going through the thread just over the last few minutes and to be honest, Im pretty amazed at this point, that my post has been singled out for attention. I mean, at one point posters are referring to "retards" in the pro and anti hunting groups!!

In fact, another poster, who happens to be a mod even quoted my "offending post" saying

I don't know that he really cares about the welfare of the animals, he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives. That's just madness

So I refer to a poster as "a bit of a crackpot" for wanting to ban fishing and horse racing, and another MOD actually follows up to my post and refers the same posters preference for species extinction as "madness"

Crackpot...madness, not much between them really.

And whats even madder, is I got banned for apologising AND retracting the "crackpot" reference PUBLICLY!

Penn

Hi wexfordman,

One of the Rec CMods will look into this and get back to you.

Thanks.

Penn

Hi wexfordman,

Firstly in reference to your second post, this thread is to dispute the action taken against posts that you made. As such, posts by other people are not up for discussion.

With regards your posts, you were needlessly aggressive in your posting style, and when given an on-thread warning to stop, you replaced "crackpot" with "an odd character"

You completely missed the point of the warning, and changing the wording to a less insulting phrase, doesn't mean that it's no longer personal abuse. Attack the post, not the poster. Calling someone an "odd character" when taking your previous posts and the mod warning into account, is still attacking the post. You were just trying to find a way to stay within the rules while still taking a cheap dig at the other poster. You failed.

If you were trying to point out his beliefs were strange, you should have said that, and pointed out why those beliefs were strange. Instead, you were implying that he was strange (firstly by calling him a crackpot, then by calling him an odd character). That's attacking the poster, not the post. As such, I am recommending that the ban be upheld.

You can ask for an Admin to review this decision if you still disagree with it.

wexfordman

Penn wrote: »

Hi wexfordman,

Firstly in reference to your second post, this thread is to dispute the action taken against posts that you made. As such, posts by other people are not up for discussion.

I fail to see how they are not relevent when considering the context of the thread overall, and as a benchmark to show whther or not my post cold be deemed as "offensive".

In fact, by ignoring the context of the thread, it would seem I am being unfairly targetted for some reason.

Penn wrote: »

With regards your posts, you were needlessly aggressive in your posting style,

I'm sorry, again, what way was I aggressive ?
Did badger complain about it ?
Did the mod who actually reused and quoted my "offending" post overlook it or find it offensive also ?

Penn wrote: »

and when given an on-thread warning to stop, you replaced "crackpot" with "an odd character"

Yes, when I apologised!! I directly and publicly apologised to the individual:eek:

I ammended my "offending" post, and publicly stated that I had done so! I didnt hide anything, I didnt simply ammend the post and pretend it never happened, I publicly acknowledged it, apologised and ammended it!

Calling someone an "odd character" is not offensive!

Penn wrote: »

You completely missed the point of the warning, and changing the wording to a less insulting phrase, doesn't mean that it's no longer personal abuse.

An apology is not personal abuse!

Calling someone an odd character is not personal abuse
.
Referring to people who support coursing as "boggers", "pikeys", "retards" etc is grossly offensive, none of which I did, but which is regularly called out in this thread.

In the context of this, I find it incredible that the term "odd character" can be deemed in any way offensive! In fact, in any context, calling someone an "odd character" could not be deemed offensive!

Penn wrote: »

If you were trying to point out his beliefs were strange, you should have said that, and pointed out why those beliefs were strange.

I DID! I specificaly stated that he wanted to ban fishing and horse racing, which to many fair minded and reasonable people would put him in the "odd character" category. And that is not offensive!!

Let me quote it again ""Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of an odd character who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing

You do see the bit where I pointed out why I believed he was an odd character ?

Penn wrote: »

Instead, you were implying that he was strange (firstly by calling him a crackpot, then by calling him an odd character).

"Strange" is not offensive either.... People can have strange views, strange ways, unusual outlooks, they can be odd characters, they can be different... odd, stand out, have different beliefs... such as banning fishing and race coursing, which I reckon to most people is....strange....odd, unusual, different....But not offensive!!

FFS, My own mother is practically a hari chrishna, I know what strange is, and I dont being categorised as "strange" or an "odd character" as insulting!

Penn wrote: »

That's attacking the poster, not the post. As such, I am recommending that the ban be upheld.

You can ask for an Admin to review this decision if you still disagree with it.

Listen, its a two day ban, and over by tomorrow I guess, but I think in the interest of fair moderation, this absolutely has to be challenged on principle.

I think, a fair moderation policy would consider the emotive topic, the thread context (ie, my alleged "offensive" post in relation to the general context of the thread), and posting history. I am a very long term member of boards, and i literally find this infraction/ban to be incredible.

When considering the "context of the thread, here are a few examples of the general tone:-

indeed. I thought it was only a pikey thing
Usual stone age bogger carry on
arrogant towny
had them all down as well..you know...the typewriter and cow sh1te folk
I don't know that he really cares about the welfare of the animals, he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives. That's just madness (mod comment who also quoted my post)
You mean a view on ethics that suits your agenda of taking pleasure in tormenting animals right?

There are retards on the anti coursing groups just as there are retards on the pro coursing groups
Hares are not adapted to traveling in confined condtions since there fúcking wild animals
Was anyone there watching the cow being tortured to death, working up an erection while drooling all over their stone age bogger chin?
Then stfu mi amigo
The only dumb animals are the ones watching it
an unsophisticated, uncivilised form of entertainment cruelty for backward, moronic oafs and bumpkins who have yet to have a 21st century experience in their lives

Penn

Again, other posts are not up for discussion here. Other people breaking the rule is not an excuse for breaking a rule. The mods may not have seen other posts, or may have taken some action which might not be clearly visible. As this is the Dispute Resolution forum, only the mod action taken against you is up for discussion.

The long and short of it is; You insulted another posted by calling him a crackpot. A mod warning was given. You apologised, but as part of your apology, you edited your post to say "an odd character" instead of "a crackpot". You simply replaced one insulting term with a less insulting term. That may not have been your intention, but an insult is an insult, and given the fact that an on-thread warning had just been given, the mod escalated it to a ban.

Again, the standard rule is "Attack the post, not the poster". Calling them an odd character is an attack on the poster, not his views. The posts of other people or the "emotive topic" is irrelevant.

If you still wish to dispute this ban, you may request for an admin to review this decision.

wexfordman

I thought I had already requested an admin to look at this from my previous post ?

Its almost laughable that a mod who deems the term "odd character" to be offensive, uses the phrase "peace assholes" in his avatar!

Penn wrote: »

Again, other posts are not up for discussion here. Other people breaking the rule is not an excuse for breaking a rule.

I never said it was, I said that when looking at the context of the thread overall, my post could hardly be deemed as offensive. Which to further clarify, is me disputing whether the post was offensive.

I suppose one way of confirming this, would be to ask the poster whom I replied to specificaly.

Penn wrote: »

The mods may not have seen other posts, or may have taken some action which might not be clearly visible. As this is the Dispute Resolution forum, only the mod action taken against you is up for discussion.

yep, I accept that, and I am not aksing for other posts to be reported, actioned or anything like that, I am simply using them as context, unless context is irrelevent in a debating forum!

Penn wrote: »

If you still wish to dispute this ban, you may request for an admin to review this decision.

Again, yes, lets bring it to an admin, as I mentioned earlier, the ban is irrelevent to me, it is two days, and I rarely if ever post in the AH forum. I think it is the principle of stifling debate.

I have specificaly replied to every single issue you raised with my post, some of which you have chosen to ignore (such as the one where you claimed I should have followed up by explaining why I though the posters thoughts were odd, when in actual fact I did!).

!

Penn

After further discussion via PM with both wexfordman and the moderator, I don't believe you had any intention of insulting the poster, and I'd be happy enough to put this down to a case of a bad choice of words leading to the ban being issued.

As such, we'd be happy to lift the ban in order to draw a line under this.

Let me know if this is agreeable. If so, we can close this and I'll lift the ban.

wexfordman

Penn wrote: »

After further discussion via PM with both wexfordman and the moderator, I don't believe you had any intention of insulting the poster, and I'd be happy enough to put this down to a case of a bad choice of words leading to the ban being issued.

As such, we'd be happy to lift the ban in order to draw a line under this.

Let me know if this is agreeable. If so, we can close this and I'll lift the ban.

Hi,

Thanks for the response, thats very agreeable, thanks to all.

Regards,
EAmon

Penn

No problem. I'll lift the ban now.

This thread can be marked as resolved.